On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:28:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 16, 8:57 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:34 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Dec 16, 10:52 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many. Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

Hah, I was running the AC last night. (Fl)

Maybe you haven't live there long enough to see it snow in Miami. Your
turn is coming.

Hurricanes, lightening strikes, tornadoes, wild fires. I'll keep my 4
seasons tyvm.

It will snow there, also.

dpb wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

...



Mother's family in The Valley around Pharr/McAllen area -- used to go
down for Christmas on occasion. Invariably would be in 40s/low 50s and
wet/damp. W/ no heat of significance in house would feel colder more
miserable than if stayed home in 20F conditions...

We're toasty this AM at 19F -- areas around w/ heavier snowfall/ice at
the 0-10F mark. No wind today and bright sun, so feels pretty good,
actually.

--

Here in Texas I walked around in shorts and a t-shirt.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Uh, maybe it's specific to YOUR location, and how some folks operate
non-EPA-compliant woodstoves. Think: population density & inversion
layering.

So your blanket statement is kinda irrelevant here.

John

On Dec 16, 3:48 pm, "Madx" wrote:
Last night here in California we were advised that there was a spare the air
alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not harmful why would it
be all over the news NOT to make a fire?

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:52:44 -0800, "Madx" wrote
Re Damn, it's cold:

You DO know that burning wood is very BAD for the environment! I guess
you
don't care much about the health of the planet.

Wood burning is carbon-neutral in any period less than roughly 100
years.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:59:02 -0600, jhasbro
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many. Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

In Houston Today it was so cold......


You're joshin' me?

On Dec 16, 11:52 am, "Madx" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...





On Dec 16, 7:52 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many.
Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads.
Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

Awww...Ifeel for you. I just chunked a couple pieces on the fire.
Must be up to around 74 in here now as I sit typing in my t-shirt and
shorts.
Was out restocking the porch from the woodshed yesterday with
windchill down around 10.

Harry K

You DO know that burning wood is very BAD for the environment! I guess you
don't care much about the health of the planet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A bit jealous? A bit undereducated on the question?

Well, yes it is and no it isn't. Depends. If one burns "dirty" it
is. If clean it isn't. I assume you are talking about two things.

Pollution: A modern airtight is almost polution free. I would be
putting almost the same amount of pollution out burning fuel oil.

Carbon: Burning wood in the long run is carbon neutral as the carbon
locked up in the wood _will_ be freed sometime due to either fire or
rot. Of course in the short term it adds co2.

But there is another side to the carbon question. If I don't burn
wood, my only other economic choice is fuel oil. Is it better to be
burnign a non-renewable, co2 adding resource or burn a renewable
(wood), co2 adding (short term) resource?

Looks like wood is not "bad" but at least a 50/50 trade off. In my
view it comes out ahead because of the renewable resource bit.

Harry K

On Dec 16, 5:22 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many.
Fortunately, we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned
goods and bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

===
All because it's 38 degrees?? Surely you jest.

Nope, and don't call him Shirley!

Harry K

"epa compliant woodstove"??? You're kidding right? what's to be compliant
about a steel box with a hole in the top?

s


wrote in message
...
Uh, maybe it's specific to YOUR location, and how some folks operate
non-EPA-compliant woodstoves. Think: population density & inversion
layering.

So your blanket statement is kinda irrelevant here.

John

"cshenk" wrote in message
...
"S. Barker"
"epa compliant woodstove"??? You're kidding right? what's to be
compliant about a steel box with a hole in the top?

Dunno but he's either the same person or another who thinks there really
is such a thing. Perhaps it's a marketing scam some folks buy into?


I know a few years back, they were using a catalytic converter to clean the
air. Has to meet a certain efficiency also, IIRC.

EPA compliant woodstoves have a secondary combustion system that
re-burns the combustion gases prior to their release. This is
accomplished with either a catalyst or what are called secondary burn
tubes located immediately below the top baffle (non-catalytic). The
efficiency of these stoves is nearly twice that of a conventional
airtight design (i.e., 75 to 80 per cent) and the amount of
particulate produced is extremely low -- typically in the order of 3
grams per hour.

For a simplified overview, see:
http://www.regency-fire.com/Faq/Wood.php

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:25:09 -0600, "S. Barker"
wrote:

"epa compliant woodstove"??? You're kidding right? what's to be compliant
about a steel box with a hole in the top?

s

On Dec 16, 6:57 pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:34 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

On Dec 16, 10:52 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many. Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.

Hah, I was running the AC last night. (Fl)

Maybe you haven't live there long enough to see it snow in Miami. Your
turn is coming.

I won't hold my breath for snow, but I have the heat on right now
as it is 39 degrees...lol

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,

Kurt Ullman wrote:
It is all what you are used to. Living in Indiana, I get a kick
when the Weather Bureau posts wind chill warnings for Florida's
panhandle when WIND CHILLS get down to 32 or so.

Yep. I've lived in Indianapolis for 30+ years.
Did you get all dug out today? Weather dudes couldn't make up
their minds yesterday so gave a bit of everything....

Yeah, no problem -- wife and I got back from visiting friends late Saturday
afternoon to find that our 16-yo son had shoveled the driveway. We didn't get
enough snow in Round Two to bother shoveling again. How about you?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Harry K wrote:

Carbon: Burning wood in the long run is carbon neutral as the carbon
locked up in the wood _will_ be freed sometime due to either fire or
rot. Of course in the short term it adds co2.

Burning *anything* is carbon neutral in the long run (for sufficiently large
values of "long").

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Harry K wrote:

But there is another side to the carbon question. If I don't burn
wood, my only other economic choice is fuel oil. Is it better to be
burnign a non-renewable, co2 adding resource or burn a renewable
(wood), co2 adding (short term) resource?

Looks like wood is not "bad" but at least a 50/50 trade off. In my
view it comes out ahead because of the renewable resource bit.

Whale oil is a renewable resource.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

.....

Yeah, no problem -- wife and I got back from visiting friends late Saturday
afternoon to find that our 16-yo son had shoveled the driveway. We didn't get
enough snow in Round Two to bother shoveling again. How about you?

We got about 5-6 inches total. I was sorta bummed after the
snow-related Armageddon we were promised earlier (g). The first round
was too wet and I had to shovel it by hand (and I am getting too old for
that ****). R2 took me about 30 minutes to throw. Also the wind wasn't
all that bad so it was still mostly flat. All in all I'd give a 2 (g).

"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Madx wrote:
Last night here in California we were advised that there was a spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?

It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.


...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.




You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.


Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Wow, that sounds miserable. 38F? You have my compassion. What will you
ever
do!


Unless I missed it, he never explained why his neighborhood was so disabled?
Just because of low temps? Don't they have heat in their schools?

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:02:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.

Please show me an online citation for this assertion of yours. I have
never heard of such a thing, and many people use their fireplaces in
the city of Rochester.

on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:


"dpb" wrote in message ...

Madx wrote:

Last night here in California we were advised that there was a spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?

It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.

...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.




You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.



Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.



Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article , willshak says...

on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:


"dpb" wrote in message ...

Madx wrote:

Last night here in California we were advised that there was a spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?

It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.

...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.




You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.



Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.



Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny


Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?

Banty wrote:
In article , willshak says...
on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
....

Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.
Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
....
Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?

Only seriously questioning that _all_ burn something *other than* wood,
actually...

--

ya i bet a good load of green hedge would plug that yuppified thing up in a
hour.

s


"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
...
EPA compliant woodstoves have a secondary combustion system that
re-burns the combustion gases prior to their release. This is
accomplished with either a catalyst or what are called secondary burn
tubes located immediately below the top baffle (non-catalytic). The
efficiency of these stoves is nearly twice that of a conventional
airtight design (i.e., 75 to 80 per cent) and the amount of
particulate produced is extremely low -- typically in the order of 3
grams per hour.

For a simplified overview, see:
http://www.regency-fire.com/Faq/Wood.php

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:25:09 -0600, "S. Barker"
wrote:

"epa compliant woodstove"??? You're kidding right? what's to be
compliant
about a steel box with a hole in the top?

s

dpb wrote:
....
part of the first citrus folks moved there from E KS during the 30s.
Uncle still has the place although they've only put back very small
fraction of the orchards since the major freezes of what--15-20 years
ago or so, now I guess...

That being "groves", of course -- clearly the flatland wheat farmer
doesn't know diddley about citrus...

--

APPARENTLY, they think 38 is cold or something.

12 here as i type. might have to get the coat out of storage.

s


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Wow, that sounds miserable. 38F? You have my compassion. What will you
ever
do!


Unless I missed it, he never explained why his neighborhood was so
disabled? Just because of low temps? Don't they have heat in their
schools?

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:59:02 -0600, jhasbro
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.

From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many. Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.



In Houston Today it was so cold......


You're joshin' me?


The response I was looking for was "How cold was it?"

I miss Johnny Carson.

--jack

I guess that presupposes anyone would be dumb enough to burn anything
green in a woodstove regardless of its kind. Be that as it may, a
non-catalytic would be the better performer; well, at least up to the
point the chimney catches on fire. ;-)

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:44:24 -0600, "S. Barker"
wrote:

ya i bet a good load of green hedge would plug that yuppified thing up in a
hour.

s


"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
.. .
EPA compliant woodstoves have a secondary combustion system that
re-burns the combustion gases prior to their release. This is
accomplished with either a catalyst or what are called secondary burn
tubes located immediately below the top baffle (non-catalytic). The
efficiency of these stoves is nearly twice that of a conventional
airtight design (i.e., 75 to 80 per cent) and the amount of
particulate produced is extremely low -- typically in the order of 3
grams per hour.

For a simplified overview, see:
http://www.regency-fire.com/Faq/Wood.php

Cheers,
Paul

On Dec 16, 8:48 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"cshenk" wrote in message

...

"S. Barker"
"epa compliant woodstove"??? You're kidding right? what's to be
compliant about a steel box with a hole in the top?

Dunno but he's either the same person or another who thinks there really
is such a thing. Perhaps it's a marketing scam some folks buy into?

I know a few years back, they were using a catalytic converter to clean the
air. Has to meet a certain efficiency also, IIRC.

Yep. A lot of construction, air flow, low pollution, etc regulations
have to met to even sell a stove now-a-days. I don't think you can
even produce a non-compliant stove for the market any more.

The 'compliant' sstoves are far more efficient and produce way less
pollutants than the old "Iron box with a hole" types.

Of course the 'efficiency' and 'pollutant' bits rely on them being
operated correctly.

Harry K

On Dec 17, 4:48 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

But there is another side to the carbon question. If I don't burn
wood, my only other economic choice is fuel oil. Is it better to be
burnign a non-renewable, co2 adding resource or burn a renewable
(wood), co2 adding (short term) resource?

Looks like wood is not "bad" but at least a 50/50 trade off. In my
view it comes out ahead because of the renewable resource bit.

Whale oil is a renewable resource.

Okay, you provide it and I will use it to for my next tank fill.
There is practical and then there is pie in the sky.

When it comes to heating, it is a necessary evil and must be done
somehow. Currently there are no 'clean' methods that are economically
viable. Someone will spring up now with "solar" ignoring the
"economically viable" bit. When someone can show me where an entry
level house can be totally solar at a reasonable cost...

Harry K

Harry K

on 12/17/2007 10:40 AM Banty said the following:
In article , willshak says...

on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:

"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:



"dpb" wrote in message ...


Madx wrote:


Last night here in California we were advised that there was a spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?


It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.


...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.





You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.


Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.




Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny



Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?


Nope. But not many specifically say gas or electric fireplace. I
searched 9 pages under that google search and there was no mention of
any law banning wood burning fireplaces.
I googled on 'wood burning fireplace rochester ny' and there are houses
for sale featuring wood burning fireplaces. Still no reference to a ban
on wood burning fireplaces.
I suppose Joe will provide a cite.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Harry K wrote:

Whale oil is a renewable resource.

Okay, you provide it and I will use it to for my next tank fill.
There is practical and then there is pie in the sky.

I can't. It's against the law.


When it comes to heating, it is a necessary evil and must be done
somehow. Currently there are no 'clean' methods that are economically
viable. Someone will spring up now with "solar" ignoring the
"economically viable" bit. When someone can show me where an entry
level house can be totally solar at a reasonable cost...


Do the math. About 745 watts per sq meter falls on the earth's surface. On
the equator. At noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase this number
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 70% efficiency for solar collectors, and adjusting for latitude and
40% cloud cover, it would take a collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to provide power for California (~50GW).

Overlooking the cost to build and maintain 1200 sq miles of collectors, the
people of Los Angeles would have to fight in the shade.

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 12/17/2007 10:40 AM Banty said the following:
In article , willshak says...

on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:

"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:


"dpb" wrote in message ...

Madx wrote:

Last night here in California we were advised that there was a
spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?

It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.

...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.




You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.

Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.


Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny



Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?


Nope. But not many specifically say gas or electric fireplace. I searched
9 pages under that google search and there was no mention of any law
banning wood burning fireplaces.
I googled on 'wood burning fireplace rochester ny' and there are houses
for sale featuring wood burning fireplaces. Still no reference to a ban on
wood burning fireplaces.
I suppose Joe will provide a cite.
Bill


That's the information I got from two realtors back in 1982, when I was
shopping for my first house. I said "fireplace", they said "not in the city
limits". It was confirmed by the guy who inspected and cleaned our
fireplace, who said "Two blocks west and you'd be in the city. No fireplace
use allowed". Maybe it changed.

I don't have time to check, but you can, if you like:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi...wse_Frame_Pg42

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Wow, that sounds miserable. 38F? You have my compassion. What will
you ever
do!


Unless I missed it, he never explained why his neighborhood was so
disabled? Just because of low temps? Don't they have heat in their
schools?

Of course we have heat in our schools. That's why the schools are
air-conditioned.

We didn't build the world's first air-conditioned sports stadium to be
ostentatious! Well, maybe a little...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Wow, that sounds miserable. 38F? You have my compassion. What will
you ever
do!


Unless I missed it, he never explained why his neighborhood was so
disabled? Just because of low temps? Don't they have heat in their
schools?

Of course we have heat in our schools. That's why the schools are
air-conditioned.

We didn't build the world's first air-conditioned sports stadium to be
ostentatious! Well, maybe a little...



So, why was the town disabled, as mentioned in your first message? Just
because it was 38 degrees? Or did something else happen?

on 12/17/2007 12:42 PM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
...

on 12/17/2007 10:40 AM Banty said the following:

In article , willshak says...


on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:


"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:



"dpb" wrote in message ...


Madx wrote:


Last night here in California we were advised that there was a
spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?


It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source which
can be a problem.


...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.





You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.


Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.



Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny



Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?



Nope. But not many specifically say gas or electric fireplace. I searched
9 pages under that google search and there was no mention of any law
banning wood burning fireplaces.
I googled on 'wood burning fireplace rochester ny' and there are houses
for sale featuring wood burning fireplaces. Still no reference to a ban on
wood burning fireplaces.
I suppose Joe will provide a cite.
Bill



That's the information I got from two realtors back in 1982, when I was
shopping for my first house. I said "fireplace", they said "not in the city
limits". It was confirmed by the guy who inspected and cleaned our
fireplace, who said "Two blocks west and you'd be in the city. No fireplace
use allowed". Maybe it changed.

I don't have time to check, but you can, if you like:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi...wse_Frame_Pg42



No search results on 'fireplace' in that code.
The closest match is Ch. 100: Smoke and Air Pollution Control which
mentions smoke and nuisances.

100-3 Dense smoke is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and the emission
or escape thereof from any locomotive, tug, boat, stack, chimney or flue
of any premises, building, fuel-burning equipment, roundhouse, portable
equipment or other similar contrivance or from any open fire shall be
unlawful; provided, however, that the following exceptions to the
provisions of this section shall be permitted.

100-4 A. No person shall cause, suffer or allow to be emitted into the
open air from any fuel-burning equipment or premises, or to pass a
convenient measuring point nearest to the stack outlet, dust in the
gases to exceed 0.85 pounds per 1,000 pounds of gases, adjusted to 50%
excess air for products of combustion, excepting that for fuel-burning
equipment or premises constructed subsequent to the effective date of
this chapter, a minimum dust-collecting efficiency of at least 85% shall
be required for special dust-separating equipment, and that for
fuel-burning equipment or premises constructed prior to the effective
date of this chapter, a minimum dust-collecting efficiency of at least
75% shall be required for special dust-separating equipment. The
limitations given shall be waived during periods when breakdown of
equipment occurs such as to make it evident that the emission was not
reasonably preventable. The amount of solids in the gases shall be
determined according to the Test Code for Dust-Separating Apparatus of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, revised and amended to
date, which is hereby made a part of this chapter by reference.

199-4 B. Acid or other fumes, noxious gases, strong odors, dust, dirt,
soot, cinders and fly ash, emitted or allowed to escape in such quantity
or volume as to be detrimental to the public or to endanger the health
and safety of the public or to cause the injury or damage to the
property or business of any person, are hereby declared a nuisance, and
the emission or escape thereof from any locomotive, tug or boat, stack,
chimney or flue of any premises, building, combustion equipment,
roundhouse, portable equipment or other similar contrivance or from any
open fire shall be unlawful.




--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 12/17/2007 12:42 PM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
...

on 12/17/2007 10:40 AM Banty said the following:

In article , willshak says...


on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:


"RobertPatrick" wrote in message
...


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:



"dpb" wrote in message ...


Madx wrote:


Last night here in California we were advised that there was a
spare
the air alert and to refrain from wood fires. So if it is not
harmful why would it be all over the news NOT to make a fire?


It's currently the PC position comes to mind?

More realistically in a metro area it is a particulate source
which
can be a problem.


...which is exactly why it was made illegal here (Rochester NY) at
some point in the past.





You mean outside?
People have plenty of fireplaces in the home and make fires in them.


Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.



Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
Google - fireplace rochester ny



Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?



Nope. But not many specifically say gas or electric fireplace. I
searched 9 pages under that google search and there was no mention of
any law banning wood burning fireplaces.
I googled on 'wood burning fireplace rochester ny' and there are houses
for sale featuring wood burning fireplaces. Still no reference to a ban
on wood burning fireplaces.
I suppose Joe will provide a cite.
Bill



That's the information I got from two realtors back in 1982, when I was
shopping for my first house. I said "fireplace", they said "not in the
city limits". It was confirmed by the guy who inspected and cleaned our
fireplace, who said "Two blocks west and you'd be in the city. No
fireplace use allowed". Maybe it changed.

I don't have time to check, but you can, if you like:
http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi...wse_Frame_Pg42



No search results on 'fireplace' in that code.
The closest match is Ch. 100: Smoke and Air Pollution Control which
mentions smoke and nuisances.

100-3 Dense smoke is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and the emission or
escape thereof from any locomotive, tug, boat, stack, chimney or flue of
any premises, building, fuel-burning equipment, roundhouse, portable
equipment or other similar contrivance or from any open fire shall be
unlawful; provided, however, that the following exceptions to the
provisions of this section shall be permitted.

100-4 A. No person shall cause, suffer or allow to be emitted into the
open air from any fuel-burning equipment or premises, or to pass a
convenient measuring point nearest to the stack outlet, dust in the gases
to exceed 0.85 pounds per 1,000 pounds of gases, adjusted to 50% excess
air for products of combustion, excepting that for fuel-burning equipment
or premises constructed subsequent to the effective date of this chapter,
a minimum dust-collecting efficiency of at least 85% shall be required for
special dust-separating equipment, and that for fuel-burning equipment or
premises constructed prior to the effective date of this chapter, a
minimum dust-collecting efficiency of at least 75% shall be required for
special dust-separating equipment. The limitations given shall be waived
during periods when breakdown of equipment occurs such as to make it
evident that the emission was not reasonably preventable. The amount of
solids in the gases shall be determined according to the Test Code for
Dust-Separating Apparatus of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
revised and amended to date, which is hereby made a part of this chapter
by reference.

199-4 B. Acid or other fumes, noxious gases, strong odors, dust, dirt,
soot, cinders and fly ash, emitted or allowed to escape in such quantity
or volume as to be detrimental to the public or to endanger the health and
safety of the public or to cause the injury or damage to the property or
business of any person, are hereby declared a nuisance, and the emission
or escape thereof from any locomotive, tug or boat, stack, chimney or flue
of any premises, building, combustion equipment, roundhouse, portable
equipment or other similar contrivance or from any open fire shall be
unlawful.


Bill


I wonder how people get away with driving Chrysler/Dodge mini-vans, then.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Assuming 70% efficiency for solar collectors, and adjusting for latitude and
40% cloud cover, it would take a collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to provide power for California (~50GW).

Overlooking the cost to build and maintain 1200 sq miles of collectors, the
people of Los Angeles would have to fight in the shade.

You can also assume a large loss of efficiency within the first three
minutes of operation when someone decides to spray paint the collector.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Do the math. About 745 watts per sq meter falls on the earth's surface. On
the equator. At noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase this number
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



Do the logic. The sun puts out much more heat than light. We should be
building heat exchangers, not photovoltaic arrays.

Of course, getting rid of 95% of the people on earth would help some,
too. There are more people alive today than the total number of people
who have died since the dawn of mankind.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Do the math. About 745 watts per sq meter falls on the earth's surface. On
the equator. At noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase this number
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



Do the logic. The sun puts out much more heat than light. We should be
building heat exchangers, not photovoltaic arrays.

Of course, getting rid of 95% of the people on earth would help some,
too. There are more people alive today than the total number of people
who have died since the dawn of mankind.

You volunteering?

OBTW, you got death certificates for them to show the count?

--

David Starr wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:52:50 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:


Got down to 38F last night in Houston.

Had to put on all the clothes I owned. Even had to get another blanket.


From the attic.

At least we didn't have to evacuate to a shelter like so many. Fortunately,
we have plenty of food; neighbors are stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water.

I'm not sure whether they're going to close the schools or the roads. Mail
delivery is likewise iffy.



Evacuate, stock up on food, closing schools & roads, no mail........
What happened, somebody see a snowflake?


Its a standing joke around Portland Oregon that when a snowflake is seen
at the Whistler ski resort
north of Vancouver, B.C., the entire PDX metro area shuts down,
canclling schols until July.

The local tv stations compete to out do each other with Cassandra
inspired predictions of weather catastrophies which never ocurr.






High here today, 29 F, with 10 inches of new snow. Just a typical day, no big
deal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:42:37 -0600, dpb wrote:

Banty wrote:
In article , willshak says...
on 12/17/2007 8:02 AM JoeSpareBedroom said the following:
...

Burning wood in fireplaces is not allowed inside the city limits of
Rochester.
Awful lot of homes and apartments for sale or rent in Rochester, NY
advertising fireplaces.
...
Soo.... *all* fireplaces burn wood, you're saying?

Only seriously questioning that _all_ burn something *other than* wood,
actually...

Tightly rolled newspapers soaked in used motor oil.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:57:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

....

Yeah, no problem -- wife and I got back from visiting friends late
Saturday afternoon to find that our 16-yo son had shoveled the
driveway. We didn't get enough snow in Round Two to bother shoveling
again. How about you?

We got about 5-6 inches total. I was sorta bummed after the
snow-related Armageddon we were promised earlier (g). The first round
was too wet and I had to shovel it by hand (and I am getting too old for
that ****). R2 took me about 30 minutes to throw. Also the wind wasn't
all that bad so it was still mostly flat. All in all I'd give a 2 (g).

I wish we had received snow. Here on the north shore of Long Island we
got wind blown rain. Plenty of rain - which froze. Black ice over an
inch thick. At least you can walk in snow.